Nanoscale markers of esophageal field carcinogenesis: potential implications for esophageal cancer screening

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has a dismal prognosis unless treated early or prevented at the precursor stage of Barrett's esophagus-associated dysplasia. However, some patients with cancer or dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (DBE) may not be captured by current screening and surveillance programs. Additional screening techniques are needed to determine who would benefit from endoscopic screening or surveillance. Partial wave spectroscopy (PWS) microscopy (also known as nanocytology) measures the disorder strength (Ld ), a statistic that characterizes the spatial distribution of the intracellular mass at the nanoscale level and thus provides insights into the cell nanoscale architecture beyond that which is revealed by conventional microscopy. The aim of the present study was to compare the disorder strength measured by PWS in normal squamous epithelium in the proximal esophagus to determine whether nanoscale architectural differences are detectable in the field area of EAC and Barrett's esophagus. METHODS During endoscopy, proximal esophageal squamous cells were obtained by brushings and were fixed in alcohol and stained with standard hematoxylin and Cyto-Stain. The disorder strength of these sampled squamous cells was determined by PWS. RESULTS A total of 75 patient samples were analyzed, 15 of which were pathologically confirmed as EAC, 13 were DBE, and 15 were non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus; 32 of the patients, most of whom had reflux symptoms, acted as controls. The mean disorder strength per patient in cytologically normal squamous cells in the proximal esophagus of patients with EAC was 1.79-times higher than that of controls (P<0.01). Patients with DBE also had a disorder strength 1.63-times higher than controls (P<0.01). CONCLUSION Intracellular nanoarchitectural changes were found in the proximal squamous epithelium in patients harboring distal EAC and DBE using PWS. Advances in this technology and the biological phenomenon of the field effect of carcinogenesis revealed in this study may lead to a useful tool in non-invasive screening practices in DBE and EAC.

[1]  M S Pepe,et al.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  Vadim Backman,et al.  Role of cytoskeleton in controlling the disorder strength of cellular nanoscale architecture. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[3]  K. Behrns,et al.  Incidence of Adenocarcinoma among Patients with Barrett's Esophagus , 2012 .

[4]  D. Slaughter,et al.  “Field cancerization” in oral stratified squamous epithelium. Clinical implications of multicentric origin , 1953, Cancer.

[5]  A. Gazdar,et al.  Surrogate anatomic/functional sites for evaluating cancer risk: an extension of the field effect. , 1999, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[6]  V. Backman,et al.  Colon cancer screening: the good, the bad, and the ugly. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  Irving Itzkan,et al.  Multispectral scanning during endoscopy guides biopsy of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus , 2010, Nature Medicine.

[8]  Adam Wax,et al.  In situ detection of nuclear atypia in Barrett's esophagus by using angle-resolved low-coherence interferometry. , 2007, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[9]  H. G. Davies,et al.  The Use of the Interference Microscope to Determine Dry Mass in Living Cells and as a Quantitative Cytochemical Method , 1954 .

[10]  Amy Wang,et al.  Patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus have low risks for developing dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. , 2011, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[11]  M. Canto,et al.  Predicting Neoplastic Progression in Barrett's Esophagus. , 2010, Annals of gastroenterology & hepatology.

[12]  Julie E. Zeskind,et al.  Smoking-induced gene expression changes in the bronchial airway are reflected in nasal and buccal epithelium , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[13]  G. Hanna,et al.  Metabolic profiling detects field effects in nondysplastic tissue from esophageal cancer patients. , 2010, Cancer research.

[14]  G. Triadafilopoulos,et al.  Prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in asymptomatic individuals. , 2002, Gastroenterology.

[15]  Vadim Backman,et al.  Nanoscale cellular changes in field carcinogenesis detected by partial wave spectroscopy. , 2009, Cancer research.

[16]  Vadim Backman,et al.  The influence of chromosome density variations on the increase in nuclear disorder strength in carcinogenesis , 2011, Physical biology.

[17]  M Fitzmaurice,et al.  Endoscopic detection of dysplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus using light-scattering spectroscopy. , 2000, Gastroenterology.

[18]  P. Sharma,et al.  Are screening and surveillance for Barrett’s oesophagus really worthwhile? , 2005, Gut.

[19]  R. Barer,et al.  Refractive Index of Concentrated Protein Solutions , 1954, Nature.

[20]  J. Barendregt,et al.  Is endoscopic surveillance for non‐dysplastic Barrett's esophagus cost‐effective? Review of economic evaluations , 2011, Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology.

[21]  P. Marjoram,et al.  The Molecular Signature of Normal Squamous Esophageal Epithelium Identifies the Presence of a Field Effect and Can Discriminate between Patients with Barrett's Esophagus and Patients with Barrett's-Associated Adenocarcinoma , 2005, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[22]  V. Konda,et al.  Optimal management of Barrett’s esophagus: pharmacologic, endoscopic, and surgical interventions , 2011, Therapeutics and clinical risk management.

[23]  K. Badizadegan,et al.  Fluorescence, reflectance, and light-scattering spectroscopy for evaluating dysplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus. , 2001, Gastroenterology.